MY PROBLEM WITH NIXONMAXXING

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
The newest trend of unconservative young people is Nixon maxing.
A recent article in The Wall Street Journal described the phenomenon.
Nixon has become a popular figure in viral YouTube, Instagram
and TikTok videos, where his archival footage is typically paired
with rap music. The Nixon Foundation is actively pushing this content. Now,

(00:35):
some of this hoopla is mere nostalgia, Nixon maxing, hats
and Nixon geear Nixon now more than ever, items, and
so on.

Speaker 2 (00:43):
But there's more to it than this.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
Nixon maxing means maxing out on Nixon, going all in
on Nixon, in a sense, resurrecting Nixon from the dustment
of history and making him an important and relevant figure again.
Nixon has become the younger generation's uncool cool guy. The
Nixon revival is a bit surprising because for the past
several decades, the iconic conservative figure was Reagan. Reagan dominated

(01:08):
the era from nineteen eighty to two thousand and eight
these are my dates for the Reagan era, and Trump
has dominated from twenty fifteen to now. Other figures Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford,
the two Bushes have been consigned to the shadows. To
the hazy background of history. Young conservatives, however, seem a
bit out of sync with Reagan. They don't identify with

(01:30):
Reagan's sunny optimism, his big sky conservatism, and so they've
picked Nixon as a sort of anti Reagan. They picked
the guy the left hated the most, the president they've
tried to stomp on for fifty years, and that guy
is now their new hero. Now I'm not a Nixon Maxer,
but I think the reappraisal of Nixon is both welcome

(01:53):
and overdue. Jade Vance recently said nice things about Nixon
at the Nixon Library, comparing Nixon to Trump. To give
my own take on Nixon, which comes not from a
millennial or gen Z, but from someone who came to
America as a teenager in the aftermath of the Nixon era.
I came to America in nineteen seventy eight. Nixon had
been out of office for four years, and Jimmy Carter

(02:15):
was elected in nineteen seventy six. Now, Republicans suffered a
terrible wipeout in the midterm election of nineteen seventy four.
This was the year Nixon resigned his office. Ford was
the well meaning but clumsy successor. Nixon's failure, I have
to say, gave Democrats not only the presidency, but large
majorities in the House and the Senate. Yes, Nixon one

(02:37):
forty nine states in nineteen seventy two, but he still
never had the sweeping control of the government that his
removal and disgrace gave the Democrats. Jimmy Carter almost destroyed
the country until the American people came to their census
and elected Reagan. Reagan defined a whole era as Nixon
did not. Both served two terms and both one with

(02:59):
big majority. But Reagan had a revolution and Nixon didn't.
Reagan brought the top marginal tax rate down from seventy
percent to twenty eight percent. Reagan won the Cold War,
helped deliberate Eastern Europe, and brought down Soviet Communism itself.
Now what does Nixon have.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
To compare to that.

Speaker 1 (03:16):
Well, Nixon went to China and he played an important
role in breaking a potential Soviet Chinese alliance. In a way,
he separated the Russian Communists from the Chinese communists. Nixon's
bold move did contain Soviet expansion, but it opened a
pathway to closer ties with China. And what has that
brought us well a mixed bag. China was a sleepy,

(03:38):
backward nation when Nixon went there. Since Nixon opened up China,
it's become more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was.
It's now an economic and military juggernaut, basically the manufacturing
hub of the world, and China's become our new rival
and adversary. So the Soviet bear has been displaced by
the Chinese dragon. Reagan described the Soviet Union as an

(04:02):
evil empire. Nixon never understood the ideological dimension of Soviet totalitarianism.
For him, the Russians were no different than the Prussian
Empire or Napoleon. Nixon studied Klauswitz and Sunsu to learn
how great powers deal with one another. Nixon was into
the art of warfare because that's what statesmanship was for him,

(04:24):
and art. He agreed with the Democrats and the need
for arms control, but insisted on what he called hard
headed deton He scorned Reagan's goal of rolling back the
Soviet Empire itself, regarding that prospect as an ideological pipe dream, foolish, reckless,
and dangerous. Now domestically, Nixon was a liberal. Not only

(04:45):
did he lavishly fund New Deal in great society projects.
He's also, in a sense, the founder of DEI. When
Lyndon Johnson advocated for government sponsored affirmative action, the first
significant affirmative action project on the part of the government
was carried out by Nixon. He backed racial preferences for
blacks in the public sector unions in Philadelphia. Nixon's program

(05:08):
was called the Philadelphia Plan. Now, Nixon's motive was Machiavelli,
and Nixon was a sneaky political operative. He knew the
Philadelphia unions were dominated by working class white Democrats. He
wanted to drive a wedge between the blacks and the
working class whites. So this was his reason for pushing
affirmative action or DEI. But hey, in the end, Nixon's

(05:29):
maneuver backfire. The Democrats got the blacks and they kept
the white working class.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
The joke was on Nixon.

Speaker 1 (05:35):
The EI became expanded and embedded in the American workforce,
first in the public sector and then in the private sector.
So Nixon, I'm sorry to say, had a big role
in starting it. Nixon was not really a conservative. How
could he be. He didn't even know what conservatism was.
He was certainly a patriot and anti communist. That's why

(05:56):
he liked Pat Buchanan so much. Buchanan, too was fiercely
pro man American and anti communist. But Buchanan recounts in
his autobiography how Nixon kept asking him, Pat, who are
these conservatives? What did the conservatives believe? Nixon was asking
as an outsider. Not only did he not regard himself
as a conservative, but he viewed conservatives as some strange breed,

(06:17):
and he had to investigate.

Speaker 2 (06:19):
Who they were and what they believed.

Speaker 1 (06:22):
For these reasons, Nixon's blindness to Soviet ideology, his welfare
state liberalism, his role in affirmative action and DEI, and
his manifest ignorance of conservatism, many conservatives at the time
did not like Nixon. Several times did I hear the
publisher of National Review, Bill Rusher say I hated Nixon
until Watergate. Russia's point is that only when the left

(06:44):
tried to destroy Nixon did conservatives rush to his defense.
Given all this, I asked myself, what is the great
appeal of Nixon?

Speaker 3 (06:53):
Now?

Speaker 1 (06:53):
Why do young people today find Nixon a more interesting
figure than Reagan? Why do we have Nixon maxing but
no Reagan maxing? Is this simply a case of the
younger generation rebelling against its elders and picking its own guy?

Speaker 2 (07:06):
Well?

Speaker 1 (07:06):
Maybe, but why him? I think a single experience I
had with Nixon, the one time I met Richard Nixon,
the one time I got a photo with Richard Nixon,
might help to answer this question. I can't remember the
year exactly, it was in the early to mid nineteen nineties.
I lived in Washington, d C, where I was a
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Several of my a
Dartmouth buddies, about ten of us also came to d

(07:28):
C to be part of the Reagan Revolution, and we
asked ourselves who is the person we would like most
to meet? We had a list, was it Reagan, Margaret Thatcher,
like Valenza Gorbachev, Pope John Paul the Second. We agreed
that the person we most wanted to meet not the
most consequential person, but the most interesting, was Richard Nixon.

Speaker 2 (07:49):
But how to meet him? Well.

Speaker 1 (07:51):
One of our group, Greg Fasstal, a dartmucd grad who
worked as an editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal,
was a Nixon admirer. Greg was brilliant, but also a
little bit of an extra centric and Nixon was also eccentric.
So Greg identified with Nixon, and he had several years
earlier written a letter to Nixon, and Nixon at courteously replied, So,
Greg was kind of our in with Nixon, But what

(08:12):
to say to him? We came up with the idea
of inviting him to address the Dartmouth Breakfast Club. Of course,
there was no such thing as a Dartmouth Breakfast Club,
but on the spot we started it. We made up
a letterhead and Greg sent an invitation to Nixon. To
our amazement, he said, yes, we had breakfast, if I
recall correctly, at the hay Adams Hotel. We rented a

(08:32):
room and had a photographer. That's how I got my
photo with Nixon. He was very generous with us. After
the breakfast, he gave a fifteen minute talk on foreign policy,
a brief tour de horizon of current events. He took questions,
and it's one of those questions and his reply that
has stayed with.

Speaker 2 (08:48):
Me over all these years.

Speaker 1 (08:49):
Now, Greg, who was never shy to ask awkward questions,
put this question to Nixon. How is it He asked
that Reagan survived the Iran contrast, but you were forced
to resign over Watergate. In both cases, the Democrats tried
to impeach and destroy a Republican president.

Speaker 2 (09:08):
But in Reagan's case they failed. With you.

Speaker 1 (09:11):
They didn't impeach you, but they did get you out
of office. So what did Reagan have that you didn't
A bombshell of a question. Now, Nixon paused, he he scowled,
a famous Nixon scowl. I could see he was annoyed.
I mean, got to feel a little uncomfortable. Several people
in our group gave Greg a dirty look. We were like,
how could you ask that? And then Nixon replied it

(09:31):
was one line, very nixony. And Nixon said, ah, yes,
Ronald Reagan. Well, at least he could say he was stupid.

Speaker 2 (09:39):
And there you have it.

Speaker 1 (09:40):
What an insight. Not so much into Reagan as into Nixon.
Nixon never understood how Reagan survived, but he didn't. More broadly,
he never understood how Reagan succeeded in transforming the world,
and he didn't. Nixon always considered himself smarter than Reagan,
and academically.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
Speaking, he was.

Speaker 1 (09:58):
Thus, Nixon concluded that Reagan's secret was his stupidity. People
expected Reagan to be clueless about Iran contra. I don't
know what happened, and that's how he got away with it.
No one would say Nixon was stupid, and therefore Nixon
couldn't claim ignorance, and that's why he was held fully
accountable for all the deceptions around Watergates. So here in

(10:19):
a nutshell, we see several of Nixon's signature qualities, which
become even more clear when they are contrasted with Reagan's qualities.
Reagan was fundamentally an optimist, and that optimism characterized the
Reagan era and also the Reagan generation, me included that
came of age in that era. Nixon was fundamentally a pessimist,
as I guessed many of his contemporary millennial and gen

(10:40):
Z admirers also are. Nixon was also paranoid, and we
see this from the Watergate scandal itself. Remember, Nixon was
on the verge of winning forty nine states. It was
not exactly a close presidential election in nineteen seventy two.
So what's the justification for organizing elaborate spying campaigns on
the other side than you have to do so elaborate
covers up and then you have to do elaborate cover ups,

(11:04):
and you end up throwing away your presidency over the scandal.
Nixon is no longer with us, but as paranoia surely is.
In fact, we live in a paranoid epoch of Nixonian dimensions.
I can see how the paranoia of our own era
where it came from. It came from numerous conspiracy theories
coming true. It came from previously trusted institutions, the CDC,

(11:27):
the nihd FBI, all forfeiting their public trust. It also
came from bitter disappointments in American society, the outsourcing of jobs,
the march of technology that also takes away jobs, the
erosion of the family and the old civic sense of community,
the collapse of normal dating and courtship, the experience of

(11:48):
censorship and political targeting, and in general, the brutishness of
the left. All of this is not only fostered paranoia,
but also a profound sense of victimization, since paranoia and
his sense of victimization are both palpable. Even in the
one incident I recounted, Nixon remained paranoid to the end.
He never gave up the sense that he was shafted.

(12:10):
And here's the thing. He was right to be paranoid.
Remember the saying, even paranoids have enemies. Nixon feared the
Eastern establishment, even the Eastern establishment in his own party,
and he was right to fear them. He hated the
Ivy League people and the mainstream media, and he thought
they were out to get him, as they were. Some
of the most amazing material in the Nixon libraries tape

(12:33):
recordings of Nixon talking about Jews and Ivy leaguers. He
says things like, Henry, there are too many Jews on
the invitation list, or Henry, I don't want to have
dinner with anyone who went to the Ivy League. He
hated those people, and in the end, I suppose they
got him. So Nixon was justified also in regarding himself
to be a victim. He was in fact ousted in
a coup that goes by the name of Watergates. So

(12:55):
I can understand to appoint young people's enthusiasm for this
strange fellow who took on an all powerful establishment and
the paranoid conspiratorial belief that it was secretly arrayed against him.
Nixon's paranoia, his conspiracy mindedness, even his borderline craziness, have
many counterparts on our social media platforms today, and in

(13:16):
some ways what they like best about Nixon is that
he lost. They destroyed his presidency and his reputation, and
this confirms the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient elite that
always wins in the end. Many young people today don't
really see a way out. They don't see a way
to win. They expect to lose, and they want to
lose like Nixon, ignominiously, to be sure, but also in

(13:37):
a way that supports and confirms the utter feelings of hopelessness.
Here's the mantra of the Nixon maxers. See, we told
you we were doomed, and now we are just like
we said. I suppose it could be said of Nixon
that he remained interesting even in defeat. He said things
like you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore,

(13:57):
which is not surprising for the bitterness, but but surprising
that someone would publicly say it. He was more of
a thinker than a doer. He read the nineteenth century
historians as Reagan didn't. He didn't defeat the Soviet Empire
as Reagan did, but he could give an analysis of
Russian history in a manner that Reagan never could. Kissinger
and his memoirs recounts the culmination of a brilliant negotiation

(14:20):
in the Middle East. He was astounded by Nixon's grasp
of events and his negotiating prowess, and Kissinger writes his
regret was that Hey, even now, he says, Watergate is
closing in on Nixon. So from Kissinger's point of view,
a great thinker and strategist of a kind America rarely
gets was being undone kick. Kissinger saw it almost in

(14:42):
terms of Greek tragedy. Nixon was ultimately defeated not by
his foreign adversaries, but by his Hamartia, his own tragic flaw.
Nixon wanted to be a populist, and he used the
campaign theme of the forgotten man in his nineteen seventy
two campaign. He was quite right to stand up for
the ordinary American against the hippies, the druggies, the nudists,

(15:04):
the angry feminists, and the Black power revolutionaries. Yet while
Nixon identified with the working class American, he didn't relate
to him. He remained aloof an insular, a real contrast
with a genuine populist like Trump. Nixon was a loyal friend,
but he was also a great hater. He didn't conceal

(15:24):
his envy of Reagan. All it took was a single
question to bring it into full display. He was still
the guy who walked with his two arms moving in
the same direction, not swinging opposite ways like most people.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
He was still the.

Speaker 1 (15:36):
Guy who walked in the beach in his leather shoes.
The philosopher Nietzsche said of the Greek tragedians that they
took the crushing burden of human suffering and made it interesting.
Nixon was a deeply flawed man, but he had a
way of making the world and himself interesting. We never
regretted our choice to have breakfast with him. He might
not help us come to terms with our situation in

(15:58):
America today or with our future, but he does help
us gain a better understanding of him and perhaps also ourselves.
And that's the way I see it. Here's the thing
about crypto. It's here to stay. That argument is over.
But think about if this is a market that never sleeps,

(16:21):
it's moving at midnight, it's two am, three am, and
while you're asleep, who's watching Because here's what nobody tells you.
Most crypto platforms give you a log in, wish.

Speaker 2 (16:31):
You luck and call it a day. That's not investing.

Speaker 1 (16:34):
That's gambling with your retirement and hoping for the best.
That's why I've partnered with block trust Ira. Block trust
Ira is CRYPTOIRA built for Americans who refuse to be
on the losing side of that equation. Their award winning
AI engine navigates the notoriously volatile crypto markets around the clock,

(16:55):
automatically rebalancing your portfolio.

Speaker 2 (16:58):
To protect your gains, limit your exposure when markets swing.

Speaker 1 (17:02):
No panic, no emotion, no missleep at three am. Your
savings sit inside a two hundred million dollar institutional grade
insurance shield, managed intelligently and secured from day one.

Speaker 2 (17:16):
Their AI never sleeps.

Speaker 1 (17:18):
It's rebalancing your portfolio around the clock, managing risk, responding
to volatility, protecting what you've built, automatically, intelligently, without panic.
Voted Bitcoin Magazine number one Technology platform, and that doesn't
surprise me one bit. Open your CRYPTOIRA today and block
trust IRA will give you up to a twenty five

(17:40):
hundred dollars inflation shield bonus.

Speaker 2 (17:43):
Straight into your account.

Speaker 1 (17:45):
Go to deneshcrypto dot com and sign up today. They
can print dollars, but they cannot print crypto. That's deneshcrypto
dot com. If you are someone you love is turning
sixty five soon, pay attention.

Speaker 2 (18:02):
The moment you hit that age, everything changes.

Speaker 1 (18:05):
Sure, you become eligible for Medicare, but you also become
a target the junk mail, the robo calls, the fine print.

Speaker 2 (18:11):
It's overwhelming.

Speaker 1 (18:13):
This system is confusing by design, and it benefits big Insurance,
not you.

Speaker 2 (18:18):
I just turned sixty five.

Speaker 1 (18:19):
I went through this and let me tell you, if
you don't know what you're doing, you can wind up
overpaying or losing access to the doctors you trust. That's
why I work with Chapter. They're independent. They don't push
one plan or another. They just help you find the
one that's right for you. Chapters advises are smart, honest.

Speaker 2 (18:37):
And they actually care.

Speaker 1 (18:39):
They compare every Medicare option nationwide to make sure you
don't miss a thing, and it's completely free.

Speaker 2 (18:46):
Chapter help me in thousands.

Speaker 1 (18:47):
Of my viewers and listeners save real money and a
ton of stress when it comes to Medicare.

Speaker 2 (18:52):
So take back control.

Speaker 1 (18:54):
Click the link and connect with Chapter today.

Speaker 4 (19:00):
Please join me in welcoming Denesh de Suzan. Please join
me in welcoming Destiny.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
Now, if you look at this Iran war and we've
got to try to be adults about all this. If
you get into a war and you have clear objectives,
the simple truth of it is, if you then turn
around and say, well, yes, we've lost seven men, or
Iran fired a missile and it got through to Israel
and killed two dogs, you're talking about a really powerful country.

(19:44):
If you had to specify in advance, you would expect
that there would be enormous casualties in Middle Eastern countries,
in Israel, that Iran would be hitting American targets on
a daily basis.

Speaker 2 (19:55):
This is a war.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
So what I'm suggesting here is that what Destiny is
doing here is setting up an absurd calculus. Iran is endured,
Well what alternative they have? A guy getting his ass
kicked in ana fight is enduring, but that doesn't mean
he's winning. Similarly, Iran is able to lash out here

(20:17):
and lash out.

Speaker 2 (20:18):
There, which we would fully expect.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
They're grabbing onto their own backyard. No surprise, they're unable
to maintain even control over their old network. So we've
disrupted the whole Iranian system.

Speaker 2 (20:31):
So when you talk about.

Speaker 1 (20:32):
Places like Russia and China, they're like, Trump actually is
willing to use force. He's willing to do it prudently,
but he is willing to kick ass. And this was
what makes him different from, for example, an absolute mindless
Joe Biden, a giggling, idiotic Kamala Harris. So again, when
you're measuring Trump, you have to measure him against the

(20:53):
absolutely impermissible alternative. Can you imagine what America would have
been like the Democrats one? Can you imagine the world
we'd be living in, the rottedness of the system would continue,
the censorship would be accelerated, the surveillance would be going on.
There would be political targeting to a degree that we
probably never imagined. Trump would probably be serving a life sentence.

(21:17):
So this is who these people are, this is what
they do, and I just Trump has liberated us from that.

Speaker 5 (21:24):
So it basically every single thing of senators is not true,
not true. But I mean, I guess the metal meats
the road. I mean here with the rubbers the road.
I guess what do you think a successful end state
for Iran looks like? What do you think it's going
to look like for the United States to leave that
conflict to emerge feeling like we were victorious, because I
will tell you that when Obama was in office, supposedly

(21:44):
inep president who didn't know what he was doing when
it came to foreign policy, we had a deal on
the table with inspectors in the country, and we had
a pathway to some kind of normalization with Iran, where
there was still intense pressure on that country. When Trump
came into the first term, he tore up the JCP
away with nothing to replace it with. He set off
the Abraham Accords and claimed piece of the Middle East
without dealing with the Palestinian issue. Biden comes in and

(22:07):
lo and behold what happens. Every time the Palestinians are ignored,
they rise up and they do an attack. It happened
with the first Hintevada, It happened with a second intevada,
and it happened with October seventh. Go you know, go
figure big surprise. Trump comes in the next time after
achieving peace in the Middle East, and then he comes
in and he does peace in the Middle East again
by attacking Iran.

Speaker 2 (22:23):
And then he's done.

Speaker 5 (22:24):
Pieces in the Middle East again by getting us in
a war with Irun. What does the end state here
look like? Because all I see is Trump making bad decisions,
the bad decisions playing out and literally the most obvious
manner possible, and then not knowing how we're going to
come out of the bad position better than we were before,
and conservative somehow trying to pretend like it was a
win every single step of the way. So yes, I'll
ask what is a good what is a positive resolution?

(22:46):
Where you would you would look at our exit from
Iran ago that was a really good idea that we
attacked that you know, we've this.

Speaker 1 (22:52):
Is our second time debating and I what frustrates mean
debating you is that you I think you have the
wrong self conception, that you are somehow presenting fast and
you will use terms like you will use terms like
this is positive uh, or this is progress or so
for example, you start off with an almost devotional premise,

(23:15):
which is that Obama was trying to stop Iran from
getting a nuclear weapon.

Speaker 2 (23:20):
My premise is the opposite.

Speaker 1 (23:22):
Obama was trying to help Iran to get a nuclear
weapon while publicly professing the opposite to his domestic political audience.

Speaker 2 (23:30):
Why couldn't they do that in eight years? Then that
was Obama's goal.

Speaker 5 (23:34):
He triggered his own side into a massive riot at
the Capitol on January sixth. So I don't know what
you mean when you say.

Speaker 1 (23:43):
They look this is like, this is like Vogue magazine
saying Michelle Obama's the most beautiful woman in America.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
Right, everybody knows it's false.

Speaker 1 (23:56):
Everybody knows it's to lie or Dylan mcveahey is actually
a gorgeous woman.

Speaker 5 (24:01):
This kind is just the same why that Donald Trump
tells us when he says he loves his beautiful wife
when he which she was at home.

Speaker 2 (24:07):
Taking care of their newborn child.

Speaker 5 (24:08):
I mean, we can, like, come on, Donald Trump is
not a.

Speaker 1 (24:12):
One says that Trump hasn't been a playboy in his
earlier days, but.

Speaker 2 (24:16):
Such a pay her for sex?

Speaker 1 (24:18):
Yeah, well, we can do a lot of this stuff
is claims and counterclaims. And we will also live in
a system, unfortunately, where even juries have become untrustworthy and
theized environment. A case in point is the January sixth defendants.
Most of those guys went before absolutely one sided juries.

Speaker 2 (24:40):
Eleven out of twelve Democrats.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
Not a jury of their peers. Again, should they have
broken at the capitol. No, but where they over prosecuted,
over punished. People actually took their lives over this incident,
committed suicide. The Biden administration did that to them, and
it did that to them. Really why because many of
those people were white, male, Christian and conservative. The truth

(25:03):
about standing is every citizen has a stake in the election,
and so you would think that any citizen who brought
a case on this matter, you'd buy, like, okay, let's
look at it, right. There were a lot of, by
the way, suggestive reasons. It's not as if this just
came out of nowhere. The windows boarded up stopping five
places stop the count within a few seconds of each other.

Speaker 2 (25:23):
Think about this.

Speaker 1 (25:24):
Supposedly each state is conducting their own count, and yet
they all stop the count at the same time.

Speaker 2 (25:30):
And to this day, you don't know and I don't know,
and he doesn't know who gave the order. That's none
of the well who gave the order.

Speaker 1 (25:37):
The idea that all the states stopped counting the same
They all stopped counting within a few seconds of each other.

Speaker 2 (25:42):
They literally not okay, literally none of this is true.

Speaker 5 (25:48):
But okay, there's a reason why you guys can't point
to any court documents, any filings, anything that demonstrates the
truthfulness of anything. It's why the guy the only guys
that defend this idea are the crazy my pillow dude
who sells pillows for fourteen dollars in eighty eight cents.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
On his website. Mike Lindell. Yeah, we can watch the video.

Speaker 5 (26:03):
We can watch There's hours of footage of Sidney Powell
lying to people, lying to these committees that are listening
to them talk about all the fake votes. We can
see the State Farm arena footage where she says, we
don't know where the boxes came from. They who were
literally counting them, they put them under the table and
then they brought them back out. The full video footage exists.
There's a reason why they can't even make standing on
these cases.

Speaker 3 (26:22):
You are right.

Speaker 2 (26:22):
There were a lot of people that.

Speaker 5 (26:23):
Would have had standing to bring these types of cases,
but none of the cases had good merits, and the
judges knew that people like you, who's who had nice
interactions with Trump, would be doing propaganda form. Even the
ones that were thrown out on standing, the judges addressed
the merits of those cases. If you'd read a single
one of those decisions, you would have actually seen that
they had the ability to make all of this evidence public.
Sidney Palgulni, where is it? Where is all of the investigation?

(26:45):
Whereas all of the public evidence for all of the
Tina Peters people they had digging through these machines in
the background. Notice that there is not a scintilla a
positive evidence that there was a single vote that was
actually changed or rigged or anything that proper happened anywhere.
Why did they lose on every single court case, even
when there were judges that looking over this that were
Trump nominated, Trump appointed judges.

Speaker 1 (27:03):
Yeah, so the judges were scared to get into it.
Hold on, because they judge by and large is in
the judicial lane and they don't want a second guest
an election process. It's too complicated. They've never done it before.

Speaker 2 (27:16):
Let me forget hold on, what do you talk?

Speaker 1 (27:19):
Let me let me give you the big picture here
that I think will convince reasonable people that something fishy
happened in a big way. I'm not talking about ten
guys from a nursing home. So Obama got sixty five
million votes in two thousand and eight, he got between
sixty five and sixty eight million votes. In two thousand

(27:40):
and eight and twenty twelve, his two elections, Hillary got
about the same number of votes, about sixty five million votes.

Speaker 2 (27:49):
Kamala Harris, years later, with.

Speaker 1 (27:51):
A demographic shift in the country, got close to seventy
five million votes. Now Joe Biden in the middle, Joe Biden,
Joe what's my middle name? Biden gets eighty one million votes.
Eighty one million votes, which means that fifteen million more

(28:11):
votes than Obama mysteriously showed up for Biden and promptly
six million of them at a minimum vanished even after
the twenty twenty election. So Biden, the guy who can't
raise one hundred dollars to build his library because everybody
basically considers him to be a vegetable and a pawn.

(28:32):
This Biden is evidently the most popular figure in US history,
surpassing Obama.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
Have every other Democrat how many to.

Speaker 4 (28:41):
Give our speakers a huge round of applause for a
spectacular start to the day.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
It's amazing, Thank you guys so much.

Speaker 4 (28:50):
Are Christians morally obligated to support the Jews in Israel?

Speaker 2 (28:56):
I'm excited for this one.

Speaker 4 (28:59):
Pleasejoin me and welcoming Danesh de Suza.

Speaker 2 (29:10):
Andrew Wilson.

Speaker 1 (29:23):
We're talking as Christians, so I'm assuming that the premise
of debate is that we are Christians, were Catholics, were Protestants,
were in the mainstream of the Christian tradition. My own
work in apologetics has taken the C. S. Lewis kind
of mere Christianity approach. I'll be using generally that in
this debate. By way of background, I come from a
very old Catholic family in India. It goes back about

(29:46):
four hundred years. My grandfather's brother was the Cardinal of Pakistan.
So I'm deeply rooted in the Catholic tradition, the Catholic
intellectual tradition. I've studied it, I've written a lot about it,
and I've debated it against unrually leading atheists, people at
Christopher Hitchins and others. Now, Israel is not my topic,

(30:10):
and by that I mean, in a career spanning thirty
five years, I haven't written about it. I barely mentioned it.
I'm not known as a Zionist. I don't identify with Zionism,
which was a secular socialist movement of the nineteenth century.
I have no particular stake in Israel as a country.
I'm America first, all the way, and so keep those

(30:34):
things in mind as we have this debate. If you're
looking for me to sort of channel Ben Shapiro or
Mark Levin, that's really not going to be happening here.
I'm not a professional Israel advocate in any sense of
the term. I discovered Israel really two or three years
ago when I visited for the first time, and I

(30:57):
found it interesting in two ways. The first one simply
that we live at a time when cities have become
really homogenized these days. You know, there's no point going
to Zurich and Copenhagen, it's.

Speaker 2 (31:09):
All kind of one thing. Israel is not like that.

Speaker 1 (31:13):
In Israel, you're very conscious that you're in the land
of the Bible. That is a very important feeling for Christians.
You get the sense that this is your spiritual homeland.
And by spiritual homeland, what I mean is that our
faith is not some kind of abstraction that is delivered
in the sky. It could have been God could could

(31:34):
have put the Ten Commandments.

Speaker 2 (31:35):
He could have, you know, put it on the moon.
But he didn't do that.

Speaker 1 (31:40):
Our Bible, our history, our Christianity is historical. It's rooted
in real people and real events and real places. It
took place somewhere in the world, and that somewhere.

Speaker 2 (31:52):
Happens to be Israel.

Speaker 1 (31:54):
That's worth remembering and worth noting. Also discovered in the
course of now for visits to Israel the thing that
really interests me, and that is biblical archaeology. And biblical
archaeology has the definitive effect of authenticating and corroborating the
people and events in the Bible. We can go into
it a little bit later. I will give you the

(32:15):
most shocking examples of this, but it is a massive
refutation of the skepticism and atheism of the nineteenth century,
which basically said that the Bible was written hundreds of
years later and most of it was kind of made up.
Biblical archaeology shows us that the Bible is talking about
real people and true events. You can debate the miracles,

(32:37):
you can debate the theology, but that these things are real,
these people are real, the events are real has been
authenticated down to the most excruciating detail. That's very important
because it also happens to establish the presence of the
Jews and their ancestral homeland, and in a way, to me,
the fundamental question that we're discussing today. When I say

(33:00):
morally obligated, what I really mean is what's the right
thing to do? Now, saying what the right thing to
do doesn't solve the problem of should we give money
to Israel or how much money should we give to Israel?

Speaker 2 (33:12):
No.

Speaker 1 (33:13):
Supporting Israel herely here basically means having a certain recognition
of a kind of spiritual and historical kinship or line
of continuity established by the way in the Bible. And
don't think of the Old Testament as Jewish. The New
Testament is just as Jewish as the Old. Both are
describing Jewish communities, and Christianity came right out of that.

(33:37):
In fact, the first Christians were Jews.

Speaker 2 (33:40):
They were Jews who followed the Messiah.

Speaker 1 (33:42):
I think historically we could say with great accuracy they
were the very first Judaeo Christians. The apostles were Judaeo Christians.
And now, to me, the core of this question is
whose land is it? Thirty seconds thirty seconds, I was

(34:06):
just getting I was just getting warmed.

Speaker 2 (34:07):
This is my introduction guys. All right, let me just
put it this way.

Speaker 1 (34:13):
There are three ways to get a country. First, you
were there first, that's the ancestral claim. Number two, you
got the country by some kind of negotiation or treaty.
Or number three, you got the lined because you captured it.
Every single country on the map in the world now
has gotten its claim based on one of these three ways.

(34:36):
The argument I'm going to make is that Israel succeeds
on all three ways.

Speaker 2 (34:41):
It checks all the boxes. Even America doesn't.

Speaker 1 (34:44):
The American Indians were here first, we might have conquered them,
taken the land from them, So we got it by conquest.
They got it by original inhabitancy. And there's a little
bit of an argument over here, but I'm going to
argue that the Jews were there, it's their land. Number Two,
they got it by treaty, was given to them by
the United Nations. They accepted it, the Palestinians rejected it.

(35:06):
And three they got it by not just by conquest.
They fought three defensive wars against massive coalitions of Islamic
forces that are into essentially global colonization. The Muslims are
the real colonizers, and so whichever box you choose, Israel succeeds,

(35:27):
and therefore supporting Israel isn't just sort of the biblical
thing to do, it's the right thing to do.

Speaker 6 (35:33):
Big round of applause for to Nash, real quick, great opening,
but that's not going to save him. I want for
everybody to remember that the topic of this debate is
if Christians have a moral obligation to support Jews in Israel.

(35:55):
He didn't give us one. It is obvious to me that,
since the answer is clearly no uh oh, that Danesh
likely gave no reason, which means I predicted you wouldn't
give us one. I will begin by expressing to you
the audience that when discussing normative claims are in this
place moral claims, you need to demonstrate why the moral
obligation is there. Danesh's view comes down to a whole

(36:15):
bunch of really stupid propositions that actually make no sense.
Note I'm not calling Danesh stupid, He's far from it.
But even intelligent people can believe stupid propositions and often
do logical proposition one.

Speaker 3 (36:28):
Christians need to support.

Speaker 6 (36:29):
A Jewish state of Israel because their ethics and Christian
ethics overlap.

Speaker 3 (36:33):
This is something which Danesh has said multiple times.

Speaker 6 (36:36):
The reason this is a stupid proposition is because the
modern state of Israel is a secular state. This date
supports abortion and most of the public supports it. They
have pregnancy termination boards which grant ninety nine percent of
applications abortions up to twenty four weeks and beyond. They
support gay marriage, and while not marrying gays themselves as
there is no civil marriage authority, they recognize all out

(36:57):
of country gay marriages as valid and all gay cohabitation
has identical social and financial rights.

Speaker 3 (37:04):
Let that sync in.

Speaker 6 (37:05):
They are extremely pro transgender in their public healthcare system
provides generously for trans surgery and voice mod training. According
sorry about that one second here. According to their own polling,
the Israeli Institute for Gender and LGBTQ Studies has supported

(37:26):
seventy five percent or more for homosexual acceptance, advocacy and
gender care, which includes ninety percent from secular Jews and
even over fifty percent from the religious Orthodox Jews. Now
I can keep going, women in the military, IVF programs,
national health care, prostitution, pornography. These are libtards, essentially who
live in Israel that Denesh wants us to support a

(37:49):
whole nation of them. Christian ethics here in the USA
determines that we resist these things in our own nations.
Why would we support other nations which codify these things as.

Speaker 3 (37:58):
Law anymore than we would sharia law.

Speaker 6 (38:02):
I don't want millions upon millions or billions of my
dollars to be used to support a system which allows
for these forms of degeneracy when we were busy combating
them in our own backyard.

Speaker 3 (38:12):
Why would Christians support that?

Speaker 1 (38:14):
Now?

Speaker 6 (38:15):
Dnesh can argue the USA is plagued with similar problems,
and that's true, and Christians here oppose our own governmental
national apparatus and strongly attempt to legislate against these forms
of policy. We do the opposite of funding it, except
through force of tax proposition to Densh believes that the
Christians have a stake in Israel because it's the holiest

(38:36):
of holies and the holiest Christian sites are there. I
grant this is true, but that doesn't give us much
reason to keep the population they're Jewish. If Christians in
the West truly want access to the holy sites, then
why not just demand Israel, who is our protectorate take
a certain amount of Christians per year. I think one
hundred thousand or more should do the trick. The USA

(38:56):
has no cut cap on Jews immigrating here. Why not
just demand they allow Christian immigration with no cap there,
or we cut off all military funding and support and
that's that. Then we get the Holy sites. He argues
that Israeli's guard these things better than Muslims. I can
see that's true, But I'm certain millions of Christian immigrants
could protect them just fine. Not sure why there needs

(39:17):
to be a Jewish state to do this, or why
we have a moral obligation to keep it Jewish at all.
Proposition three danesh Offen sites the biblical principle of those
who bless Israel will be blessed. That's Genesis twelve three.
Does a modern state of Israel seem very blessed to you?
If He took every Jew in Israel and put them
in Germany in the year twenty twenty six, they would
be safer than they are in Israel. How's that for irony?

(39:45):
Is God blessing their abortions, their homosexuality and prostitution advocacy,
the rejection of the Messiah doesn't seem like it to me.
If that's what a god blessed nation looks like, then
I would be very wary of the blessings of that God,
because he sure seems like he isn't very fond of
them at moment.

Speaker 3 (40:01):
Proposition four.

Speaker 6 (40:02):
Do Christians have an obligation to support religious Jews naming
a Messiah considering that that Messiah figure will certainly be
false and anti christ This is obviously no. Don't know
about Dunesha over here, but the proposition of naming false
Messiah and Christians supporting that by funding the religious, more
conservative section of Jewish population claiming its moral seems insane
to me.

Speaker 3 (40:23):
Proposition five.

Speaker 6 (40:24):
Are secular Jews blessed or non religious Jews blessed by
the same genesis packaged dness or passage? In other words,
if I bless atheist Jews and all their liberal policies,
while I in turn be blessed with magic Jew blood,
do I need to fight and die on their behalf
of this blessing? Is it just a mind state like
I just kind of cheer them on? Does it require

(40:46):
action on my part? What are my actual obligations here
as a Christian? What's the normative framework to receive said
blessing from my support of atheist Jews, I say the opposite.
As a Christian's my duty to resist and oppose the
radical as atheist and secutor Jewish agenda of Israel until
he conformed to my ethical model. I would like and
would do in all cases. I would demand this if

(41:08):
every nation pull all financial and military support and deal
with them only as a limited capacity as they could
be dealt with. I am not in the business of
funding abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, female empowerment. Christians must resist these
propositions and demand if Israel wants our aid, they need
to conform to the standards and normative ethics of the
very Christians they endlessly demand help from.

Speaker 3 (41:32):
Let us play pretend.

Speaker 6 (41:33):
Okay, tomorrow all of these Islamic nations right around Israel
unite and they crush it, and they wipe Israel out
in a single day. Let's just say, in this hypothetical, okay,
what happens then to the United States? What happens to
the United States?

Speaker 1 (41:47):
What happens to the United States now is that you
will have created what Islam is long dreamed of, which
is a restoration of that we haven't had in a slade.

Speaker 6 (42:00):
I give a shit about the Islamic Caliphate, though, why
do I care the the Islamic Caliphate.

Speaker 1 (42:07):
Uh, the Islamic Caliphate is all over Texas. It is
not only taken.

Speaker 6 (42:11):
That's though. We can fix immigration, whether or not you
have a Jewish state or not.

Speaker 1 (42:15):
Hold on, hold on, many of these Muslims have been
here for decades. This project has been going on. Uh,
Muslims came to Detroit.

Speaker 2 (42:24):
And then I have to do any Israel.

Speaker 1 (42:26):
The anti semitism of Henry Ford where he said I
want to bring a bunch of Muslims over here on topic.

Speaker 3 (42:32):
Israel's gone now in this hypothetical, in a single day.
They just steamroll it.

Speaker 6 (42:36):
They take all the land, right, Okay, they are reforming
a caliphate.

Speaker 3 (42:40):
Let's even say.

Speaker 2 (42:41):
And you're like, who cares?

Speaker 6 (42:42):
Yeah, when I go down into my toolbox to grab
the ranch to wrench on my fucking car, I care
about this?

Speaker 3 (42:46):
Why?

Speaker 1 (42:47):
Okay? Why why would you care? The same thing happened
to Alaska.

Speaker 3 (42:50):
Because those are my countrymen.

Speaker 2 (42:52):
Oh, those are your countrymen.

Speaker 1 (42:53):
But you still can go to your toolbox and you
can work in your garage and if Alaska is off
the mat.

Speaker 6 (42:58):
That would have drafts matter, that would have drastic direct
repercussions upon me. If it was the case that one
of the states of the country that I live in
was steamrolled by Islam. On the other hand, I think
that there would be far less drastic and direct consequences.
Weren't the case that, let's just say, Israel steamrolled by Islam.

(43:20):
What I want to know, specifically, if it was, what
the hell does the mechanic in the garage down the street,
what does that do to him?

Speaker 3 (43:28):
Specifically?

Speaker 1 (43:29):
What well in your view of the world, if it
is outside the geographic border of America, that boy has
to do with it.

Speaker 6 (43:41):
I want you to answer the question I ask instead
of the office games.

Speaker 2 (43:44):
The world is a much more.

Speaker 3 (43:46):
The world's a dangerous place, a dangerous neighborhood.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
In the world. I know it doesn't matter.

Speaker 3 (43:50):
But that's all rhetoric.

Speaker 6 (43:51):
Answer the question I asked Forget the rhetoric, give me
the logic. Let's pretend, seriously, pretend game out the hypothetical
with me. Israel's destroying a single day by its Islamic neighbors. Okay,
that's what happens. It's gone let's just say, how the
hell does that negatively affect the United States? What is
it going to do to the average citizen here if
that happens, even if Muslims are getting super upany and

(44:14):
want their caliphate, what.

Speaker 1 (44:16):
Does it do?

Speaker 2 (44:17):
Let's play it out.

Speaker 1 (44:19):
Okay, So number one, the let's assume that a juggernaut
launched out of let's say Iran and Qatar takes Israel.

Speaker 3 (44:29):
Huh.

Speaker 2 (44:30):
And not only that, but now all the other.

Speaker 1 (44:33):
Gulf kingdoms are intimidated, and so they submit to a
single unified force. Let's just call it the United States
of Islam. Okay, And that's the whole Middle East.

Speaker 3 (44:44):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (44:44):
It is fantastically rich, it has nuclear weapons, and it
has a suicidal and genocidal ideology that says, we love death,
we don't like life. These guys right are now going
to start bankrolling the Islamic project in America to a
degree that you can hardly imagine. So we are now

(45:07):
talking about the fact, and let's let's just game it out.
You want to game it out, let's game it out.

Speaker 3 (45:11):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (45:11):
Every politician in Texas, by and large, if you if
you want to get their attention, just write them a
check for ten thousand dollars and they will call you
within a week, within a week to hear you out.

Speaker 2 (45:24):
And what's on your mind?

Speaker 1 (45:25):
Now, imagine an Islamic regime, two billion people in the world,
with almost infinite resources, offering every US congressman one hundred
million dollars in.

Speaker 2 (45:37):
Their pack if they vote on the side of Islam.

Speaker 1 (45:40):
What percentage of Democrats do you think would say no,
I would submit, it's about one or two percent. What
percentage of Republicans would say no, I submit, it's about
ten percent.

Speaker 2 (45:50):
Isson in law included.

Speaker 1 (45:51):
Okay, but what we're basically talking about is a buyout
of the United States of America inc.

Speaker 2 (45:59):
This is on the table.

Speaker 1 (46:00):
The Muslims say they're gonna do it, they are doing it.

Speaker 2 (46:04):
Would stands you started out.

Speaker 7 (46:10):
All that stands in the way of of all of
the Muslim world uniting, even though there's nukes there now,
even though they have a shared value to destroy Israel.

Speaker 6 (46:21):
Now is ten million Jews that are sitting. That's the
stupidest thing that I ever heard.

Speaker 2 (46:25):
Here's actually well.

Speaker 3 (46:29):
At all, game it.

Speaker 6 (46:31):
Out a different way. They destroy Israel in a single day.
Isn't it equally possible that they open up relations with
the United States and the rest of the West because
they want to enter into massive trade agreements, because it
is the case that they want their own people groups
to thrive, because it is the case that they are
geographically landlocked away from Europe for the most part, and
definitely the United States.

Speaker 3 (46:51):
Oh, isn't it the case that we could then get
oil for cheaper.

Speaker 6 (46:54):
Isn't it then the case that there's all sorts of
trade agreements we could have that we no longer have
to sanction them on because we don't have to have
this protectorate there. That's equally logically possible. The problem that
you have here, I'm not saying that this should happen.
I'm pointing out in analogy that you are making the
determinative kind of quality here that ten million Jews are

(47:16):
stopping this nightmare scenario, and it's absurd.

Speaker 3 (47:19):
That's not what's actually going on. What's actually going on.

Speaker 6 (47:21):
Is the United States military is what's stopping that nightmare scenario,
not ten million Jews in the United States. And if
we had mass migration of Christians to that region for
their own holy land, for them to have their own
holy relics, for them to have the Holy Land back
to them, that region would be infinitely safer than it
is right this second.

Speaker 1 (47:42):
So I think here we've reached the point where the
core naivete of your position, which is that the Muslims
are just like the rest of us, comes to the forefront.
When the Barbary pirates were menacing American ships and Jeffersons
and ambassadors, Jefferson's question to the ambassadors was, go talk

(48:06):
to the ambassador in Tripoli and ask them what is
their beef with America. They've been fighting with Europe for
a long time. We haven't done anything to them. Why
are they doing this to us? And the ambassador abdal
Rahman replied, he goes, it has nothing to do with you.
We are doing this because it asks us to do it.
In the Quran, you are an infidel and our job

(48:29):
is to fight, defeat and destroy the infidels. This is
in the Quran. It is the actual constitution of the
world of Islam. So when you say these are guys
who want coffee shops and tall buildings and Trump Tower
and high tech. Yes, but I would say, and here's
where you would say that the Muslims who want those

(48:51):
things are actually the Muslims least attentive to the Quran.
These are the Muslims who are actually less Islamic, mulim,
less in bread. The true Muslims see all of America
as the house of war. So the idea that you suggest,
which is the ge they're going to be we're landlocked,
we need to make some trade deals is a complete

(49:13):
misunderstanding of the nature of Islam.

Speaker 2 (49:16):
And this is part of the reason I just want
necessary acts.

Speaker 6 (49:21):
I want to make sure the naivete is on my
part that you believe the only thing stopping this future
is ten million Jews who are in that region.

Speaker 3 (49:27):
No, I just want to make sure that that is.

Speaker 2 (49:29):
The natural position. I'm not saying.

Speaker 1 (49:31):
Look, you asked, you gave me a hypothetical, and you said,
if Israel is obliterated. The scenario I'm describing doesn't require
the obliteration of Israel. It simply requires the complete mobilization
of those countries. I think what Trump is doing is
he's playing a game in which he's trying to set
one Muslim off against another.

Speaker 2 (49:52):
He's like, listen, let me see.

Speaker 3 (49:53):
This, that's actually perfect.

Speaker 6 (49:54):
So that if it is the case, Denesh, that this
does not require the obliteration of Israel for Muslims to
do this right this second. If they do begin acting
this way, and I agree with you that they likely will,
then I could see how Christians would have an obligation
to intervene, especially in our own interests, because now they're
coming here to kill us.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
Great, we would need to do something about that.

Speaker 6 (50:17):
But you see how you carefully took Israel out of
that equation and ten million juser out of that equation.
What's the obligation morally that we have to go help
them right this second when you just made the claim
that without them there or with them there, this can
still happen even without their obliteration.

Speaker 1 (50:38):
Well, let's extend out the same analogy to see why
what I'm saying makes total sense.

Speaker 2 (50:44):
Okay, let's envision a.

Speaker 1 (50:46):
Scenario where it's not Israel that is overrun, but Australia, Canada,
Great Britain, France and Germany are overrun by the Muslims.

Speaker 3 (50:56):
With their immigration policy.

Speaker 1 (50:57):
That's right, with their immigration policy, but not just immigration
po massively supported by terrorist infiltration money coming out of
Qatar and other is out of.

Speaker 6 (51:06):
The terrorist infiltrate without the mass migration, Dinash.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
No, many of them already in the country.

Speaker 3 (51:11):
Because of mass migration, because.

Speaker 2 (51:13):
Of original mass migration.

Speaker 3 (51:15):
Yes, what we've done, Okay, that's a suicidal empathy.

Speaker 6 (51:18):
But that has nothing at all to do if if
we have good border policy, and we have good immigration
policy locking Islam out of the United States and Western world,
which I would love to see, right, this problem goes away,
regardless of regardless of US helping Israel or not.

Speaker 1 (51:35):
Number one, many of them already here. Number two. The
hold on the Muslim Brotherhood has made it really clear
in its memoranda that we don't actually want to focus
on bin Loaden types with long.

Speaker 2 (51:50):
Beards and white robes.

Speaker 3 (51:54):
On the womb.

Speaker 1 (51:54):
We want American born kids, wo, dude, and American warn
converts to take the vanguard. We mean Islamic lawyers born
in America. So unless you have some plan for getting
out thirty million Muslims who are legal and US citizens,
by the way, you're talking nonsense, guys. I want to

(52:33):
announce I have a new book coming out in the fall.
I'm very excited about. It's called The Stones Cry Out
subtitle Biblical Archaeology, Prophecy and the Last Days. The book
outlines the greatest discoveries in Biblical archaeology that affirm the Bible,
confirm the presence of the Jews and the Holy Land,

(52:53):
and also support the twin foundations of Western civilization, which
are Athens and Jerusalem.

Speaker 2 (53:00):
Stones.

Speaker 1 (53:00):
Cry Out has rave reviews from archaeologists, from leading pastors,
and from prominent commentators of The book, published by Charisma Books,
is available now for pre orders on Amazon. So I'm
calling on you early birds to order your copies now.
You'll be the first to get it when it's out. Hey,

(53:21):
I'm now on substack. It's kind of full circle for me.
I started out as a journalist writing articles for National Review,
the American Spectator, the Washington Post, lots of places. After
my stint in the Reagan Whitehouse, I pivoted to writing books.

Speaker 2 (53:35):
And that was way back in nineteen ninety one.

Speaker 1 (53:38):
So I've been mainly known as an author and of
course later as a filmmaker. But my first job journalist,
and now I'm getting back to that. On substack, you'll
get original articles on commentary, groundbreaking investigations, exclusive access to
film clips and show clips.

Speaker 2 (53:55):
And guess what, it's free. So check it out.

Speaker 1 (53:58):
Go to Denesh DESUSA dot substack dot com. Jonathan Rose
was born in London moved to the United States in
nineteen ninety seven. Has had a long career working for
companies like Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Prudential Securities. He's

(54:21):
currently the co founder and CEO of block Trust IRA
also known as block Trust. This is a company that
uses the latest cutting edge AI to drive investment strategies
for accounts that are in iras or in tax protected iras.
And Jonathan, We're going to talk a little bit about

(54:42):
about crypto and bitcoin, but I want to begin at
the sort of bitcoin for dummies level by asking you
if someone were to say, I, you know, I hear
about cryptocurrency and I sometimes hear that bitcoin is is
an asset? What is bitcoin? And crypto? Are these assets?

(55:02):
Are these currencies? How would you describe the category that
we are dealing with here?

Speaker 8 (55:10):
Yeah, it's a great, great question, you know when you
took me down memory lane there telling the audience, you
know with London Metal exchangeable can standing bill into kind
of brings back great memories to me and being in
the financial realm. How I kind of answer this question
is watching the evolution of everything. I used to work
on a trading stock market floor wearing a jacket, people screaming,

(55:32):
tickets flying everywhere, and then really the birth of the
Internet and communications being sped up and maybe not running
across the trading pit floor and communicating online with treaders,
and as things became quicker and quicker. This was the
advancement of technology, and technology was able to make better
decisions quicker, which ultimately led to these companies I worked

(55:54):
for to make more money for the bottom line. You know,
when I was first introduced to crypto currency, which is
really a peer to peer system to change information much faster.
As intriguing as it was, I think there was kind
of a pushback on technology back then. And when people
were telling me that cryptocurrency assets like bitcoin are going
to become the future of money and the future of

(56:18):
holding an asset class, which I guess you could call
it an asset and look at it as real money,
I always wanted guilty hands up. I was one of
those people, Nah, you absolutely crazy digital money that you
can't see, you can't touch, and this is going to
be the future and replace different asset classes. So I
Dinesh was one of those naysayers. I was one of

(56:39):
those naysayers that this is a fad, this isn't going
to last. And lo and behold, you know, Hindsight's twenty twenty.
I began to listen to a lot of my peers,
you know a lot of very wealthy billionaires and people
that were running billion dollar books and were telling me
and educating me on why assets like bitcoin is the
future of money, and it is an asset class, and

(57:02):
it is a store value, and it is real money,
especially with the limited supply, the twenty one million tokens
that can ever be minted. So in twenty and fourteen,
I was reintroduced twenty fifteen, reintroduced to bitcoin again. I
think it was a round about maybe five thousand dollars
a token back then. I bought some, I sold some. Again.

(57:22):
I was looking at it and thinking, is it going
to have this staying power that everyone keeps telling me
it's going to have. I was still not one hundred
percent sold. But then when I started watching the institutions
begin to buy, because remember there's a big difference between
people like you and I on the retail level waking
up in the morning drinking their coffee, you know, reading

(57:42):
their paper, versus big institutions with billions of dollars in
slush fund money, siphoning that money off and start secretly
buying it. When I started seeing that, that's when I
started really paying attention because I followed the institutional money.
And then when I saw that the big, biggestitutions were
buying back in and then President Trump was making his

(58:04):
pitch per se on his campaign trial to realize that, Hey,
I also believe in crypto. I believe in bitcoin. It's
going to be the future of money, and we want
to make America the US crypto capital of the world.
So I think the Trump family believe it as an
asset class as money. And with anything that's new, there's
always going to be a little bit of skepticism. But

(58:26):
that's where I say, you know, people like you, you're
champion for information, for knowledge and laying it out in
very simple terms, and I'm a big proponent for that
for people to kind of pick up these books, speak
to people and get an education on why every day
when you're up hopefully drinking your coffee, reading the news,
you're hearing bitcoin, bitcoin institutions buying clarity acts being passed.

(58:51):
You know, President Trump mining bitcoin, you know bitcoin being
added to the US Treasury. You know, why do we
keep hearing about this word bitcoin every single And it's
simply because it's a new asset class that's emerged that
will eventually maybe not replace money, but it will be
a store of value where funds get siphoned to. Because

(59:12):
as we look at the US dollar thirty nine trillion
dollars in debt and drowning, the monetary supply is under
extreme pressure. Once those cracks deepen and widen, we're going
to see more and more money shift into the cryptocurrency landscape,
particularly assets like bitcoin, which is considered an asset class
in real money. And this is the time we're in

(59:33):
this golden age, so to speak of why people need
to get a strong understanding and education and find out
why they want to add bitcoin to their portfolio right now.
So kind of a long winded answer, but it's been
an interesting journey for me for the past, you know,
twenty years after leaving Wall Street and seeing how bitcoin
adoption has come about, and seeing what the future of

(59:56):
money looks like. And I think people need to not
be like an ostrich and very the head and the said,
but really pay attention and start understanding this monetary reset
that's going to be upon us shortly, and why it's
important to shift some assets into an asset like bitcoin.

Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
You know, I know that in previous years some of
these big investment houses have been skeptical of bitcoin and crypto,
and quite honestly, I think the main reason for it
is that they, you know, in a way, they saw
that they couldn't make as much money off of this
asset class as they could. If you're buying and selling shares,
you obviously need their brokers to carry it out.

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
And so but recently I saw.

Speaker 1 (01:00:38):
Fidelity has made a big investment in crypto and in bitcoin,
and I think you mentioned that there's a tightening up
of the regulatory infrastructure. So while the bitcoin world may
have looked like the wild West, you know, twenty ten
to twenty fifteen, it's now become mainstream. And of course,

(01:01:02):
as we go into an increasingly digital world, isn't it
obvious that digital currencies are going to be the way
in which transactions take place? Are you talk a little
bit about block trust, Ira, because it seems to me that,
like your company is kind of a marriage of recognizing

(01:01:22):
the power of bitcoin and crypto but marrying it to
the technology of artificial intelligence and explain why that can
be really helpful to someone who's looking for sort of
looking for some smart people to manage their money even
while they sleep.

Speaker 8 (01:01:40):
Yeah, good question, and I kind of reference what you
said that you know where we're now seeing Fidelity purchase bitcoin,
we are seeing Morgan Stanley, We're seeing black Rock develop
even these ets strategies for bitcoin. And in fact, if
you look at these big institutions now, the most profitable
asset class, these big institutions like Blackbrook, the most profitable

(01:02:02):
etf is bitcoin. So, like you said, if you can't
beat them, then join them, because they now trying to
find out ways on how to monetize the cryptocurrency landscape
because they've been missing out for many years. But this
is where the problem really arises. Because let's say you
speak to Fidelity or you're speaking to your neighbor and
you're like, Hey, you know, I'm hearing bitcoins a good investments.

(01:02:24):
I want to buy some Where do I go? And
you could be buyed online at Fidelity, you could go
to Coinbase, you could go to Kraken and then this
is where the problem starts, because they're giving you essentially
a platform, and the platform fancy word for platform is
like you buy yourself DIY, go and figure it out,

(01:02:45):
and you can try and buy some crypto over here.
And this is where people are left kind of scratching
their head because they're like, well, this is complicated. I
don't even understand how to do this. So at block Trust,
what we do is we specialize in helping people first
and foremost on board safely, securely, even with an IRA
or four one K, because the government lets you do that.
You can roll over a retirement account tax and penalty free,

(01:03:08):
and you could buy digital currencies with it, such as bitcoin,
the theory of even XRP. We have over sixty different cryptocurrencies.
But now this is really the main distinguishing factor between
block Trust and everybody else out there. So everybody else
out there kind of gives you a cockpit. We give
you a pilot, so we are here to talk to

(01:03:31):
you on board. You that you know you're calling a
phone number, you're not ending up overseas somewhere. You're actually
speaking to someone that has knowledge about the cryptocurrency market
that can walk you through a to z on how
to purchase this. So so number one, you're not alone.
Number two, you know, we take security very seriously, so
military greed, encryption, two hundred million dollars worth of insurance

(01:03:53):
when people are buying, So we want to make sure
people feel safe and secure. And when you buy a cryptocurrency.
The big maybe conundrum that people kind of talk about
is the volatility with crypto. Right, we know it's inherently volatile.
So all you can do up until we came around
was what we call the buy and hold strategy. So

(01:04:15):
buy and hold strategy may work wonders for I don't know,
precious metals, which I also own. You know, you buy
a piece of silver, you throw it in the safe
and you forget about it, buy and hold. But why
doesn't that work for cryptocurrency. Well, because it's a market
that doesn't sleep. It's a market that doesn't have an
opening bell, it doesn't have a closing bell, so it's
always on twenty four to seven. So the question then arises,

(01:04:38):
who's watching your portfolio at three am? If there's attack
in the Middle East, if there's fiscal policy change in Japan,
if there's a currency debasement. So we use very sophisticated AI,
which we've had for the past seven years that was
voted number one trading strategy by Bitcoin Magazine. And what
this AI is doing and it's the good kind at Dineshkase.

(01:05:01):
Sometimes ALI can also have a negative perspective on it,
but our AI is crunching data and they say data
is the new oil. And when you're looking at a
market that doesn't sleep, we have to quantify millions and
millions of data points. So we're looking at on chain metrics,
who's buying, who's selling, We're looking at investor sentiment, who's talking,

(01:05:23):
who's tweeting about bitcoin? And multiple different languages around the globe.
We're looking at priced technical analysis, trading charts, we're looking
at macroeconomic data, which is probably the key indicator right now,
especially with what's going on within Iran and the oil supply.
And we're quantifying these data points and the data is
telling us, hey, get out of the market. Volatility is

(01:05:44):
going to hit us. So we move our clients out
of the market and they sit in cash. They can
access their money anytime, there's no lock up period, and
then when the time's right to buy again, we'll get
these green signals and then we'll be able to buy
back in for our clients. So what doing is we're
mitigating that draw down that we see with crypto, the
draw down. We've seen it go stray high, but people

(01:06:06):
weren't able to lock in their profits at the right time.
So what if there was a way where this volatility
is like being at a beach with your family and
a lifeguard and he's blowing the whistle. Don't go in
the ocean. There's a riptide. Everyone needs to stay out.
So we're able to do that. We do this very successfully.
Twenty twenty five was a very bad year for bitcoin.

(01:06:27):
If you would have held it from January to December,
you would have been down negative six and a half percent.
But with our technology, we were up twenty seven percent.
So that's something I like to brag about. And how
we're able to do that is recognizing times in the
market where you need to be buying and selling out
buying and selling, and maybe we'll do that three or

(01:06:48):
four times a month, depending on the volatility. So we
look at now volatility as our friend. It's not a
magic crystal ball in Nasha. We're not right one hundred
percent of the time, but we are right more than
we are wrong, and then this is how we beat
the buy and hold strategy. So a buy and hold

(01:07:08):
strategy may work wonders for many different asset classes out there,
such as precious metals, but a buy and hold for
an asset class that doesn't sleep because there's no opening
bell or closing bell, you want to have a watchdog.
You want to have someone watching this twenty four to
seven even while you sleep, so you can make the
right decisions at the right time from saving you tens

(01:07:31):
of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars worth of
potential gains or losses just by using this very sophisticated
AI which I will add one last thing that was
only reserved and available for hedge funds, elite institutional investors
that were using our technology, and I was able to
bring this technology down to the retail level, so people

(01:07:53):
like you and I, just retail investors as well who
have iras and four to one ks can take advantage
of this. Because people want to invest and they want
to invest in crypto, but to not use our type
of technology is actually irresponsible. It will be irresponsible not
to use this type of technology right now. And people
who are looking at crypto they may be on the

(01:08:16):
right track, but they're on the wrong train because now
we have these sophisticated tools that are going to mitigate
risk and maximize returns. And this is exactly why block
trust is probably the fastest growing crypto platform in America today.

Speaker 1 (01:08:32):
The company is block trust IRA. I've been talking to
Jonathan Rose, the CEO. Jonathan, thank you very much, Thank you, Denesh.
We work our entire life sacrificing and saving for a
comfortable retirement, to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren.
Right but then you see the reckless spending in Washington,

(01:08:55):
you see the inflation that's eating away at your hard
earned savings. It's infuriating. That's why I don't just sit
back and watch. I take action to help protect my family.
That's why I'm recommending you learn about how gold and
silver can help you protect and diversify your savings.

Speaker 2 (01:09:13):
And the best place to start, in.

Speaker 1 (01:09:14):
My humble opinion, is with a free gold and silver
kit from my trusted partners at gold Co. Gold Co
is who I trust. They've helped tens of thousands of
Americans place over three billion dollars in gold and silver,
and because they're a trusted partner of this show, you
could qualify for up to ten percent and free silver

(01:09:35):
just for getting started. Gold Co is the real deal,
so go ahead head over to dineshgold dot com. That's
dineshgold dot com.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Betrayal Weekly

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}MY PROBLEM WITH NIXONMAXXING

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Betrayal Weekly

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

MY PROBLEM WITH NIXONMAXXING

Stuff You Should Know